Prima Secundae
114. Aquinas on Anger, Part 2: What Causes Anger – Injury, Being Slighted, Excellence and Weakness (Summa I-II, Q. 47)
Class of 2013-04-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/114-aquinas-on-anger-part-2-what-causes-anger-injury-being-slighted/

[0:00] Causa effectiva. So? I mentioned how this consideration of anger is more extended, like the consideration of love was, right? You consider it in itself, and then you look before at the cause, and then you look after in the effect,

[0:22] but he joins to cause the remedies, of it. So Tom is supposed to have grabbed what the piece of burning thing from the fire there and chased the woman out, right? That was sent there to make him reconsider his vocation, right?

[0:49] Then we're not to consider about the effective cause; it's the mover or maker, right? Of anger and about its remedies, and about this four things are asked, right?

[1:07] First, whether what moves us to anger is something done against the one who is what Angered. Anger, right? Second, whether only thinking little of parvipensio, one word there in Latin, or the what despising is a motive of what anger? Oh, there's something to do with that, right? I was mentioning, I think, if I remember rightly now, in the fourth book of the Ethics, right? He takes up the virtues concerned with money, like like liberality and what magnificence, and then takes up the words the two virtues concerned with honor, right?

[1:48] Philotimia and what Magnanimity? He takes actually magnanimity before philotimia, right? And Mozart represents what magnanimity in the thirty-six and the forty-first symphonies, the two C major symphonies, right? Presentation of magnanimity, which does great things in all the virtues, as Aristotle says. And then he takes up the one concerned with anger, right? But there's a connection there, right? Because the virtue is concerned with what honor, right? And anger is kind of concerned with what dishonoring in some way, right?

[2:27] Think little of me, right? huh Okay, you despise me, right? That's kind of a dishonor, right? Third, about the cause of anger on the side of the one getting what angry, Angry, right?

[2:53] So the first two articles are about something someone else is responsible for, right? First one is a little more general, but the second one, single word parvipensio right? Or despising, right? He despises me, right? Thinks little of me.

[3:17] Well he's thinking of you anyway. Okay. Third, and the cause of anger on the side of the one against whom one is what angry. That seems like

[3:38] needless repetition of again that side, right? To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that one is not always what angry, an account of something done against oneself, right?

[4:00] For a man in sinning, huh, is not able to do anything against what? Against God. Yeah. For it's said in the book of Job, chapter 35, verse 6. if your iniquities are what multiplied, right? Huh? What do you do against him, right? Huh?

[4:27] The invulnerable one, right? So God offended with our sins, or what? We are speaking there. Examine it. But nevertheless, God is said to be angry against men and account of their sins, according to that of Psalm one o five. But the God is angry with furore, right? In his people, right? Okay.

[5:04] So if God could be angry with us, but we can't harm him, right? Therefore, not always is someone angry an account of something done against him, right?

[5:19] Moreover, anger is a desire for revenge, right? But someone desires revenge also against what about those things which are done against what others, right? Huh?

[5:35] Therefore, not always is the motive of anger something done against us, right? So someone's beating up a little kid, there, you might get kind of angry about this, right? Huh?

[5:47] The judge, sometimes, you know, can see anger, but you're done to someone other than him, right? Moreover, as the philosopher says, in the second book of the rhetoric, huh? Men get angry, especially against those who despise those things about which they themselves are most of all studious, right? Just as those, who are studious in philosophy, I become angry against those who despise philosophy. Is that so? You see that in the philosophy students down there at DC?

[6:24] If they get enough beer in them on a Friday night; they can probably get angry against the non-philosophers. My brother Mark and I used to go to this little shop owned by a Chinese lady, and buy a present for my mother because they had nice little dishes there and things you know my mother liked. And she, you know, make conversation with us because you know we're college students, you know.

[6:50] What are you studying? We'd say philosophy. You know, she'd kind of laugh. It sounds so impractical, you know. I mean, what are you doing? We didn't mind it. you know, because that was kind of funny in the fact, but it was kind of interesting to see her reaction to what we were studying. Moreover, as the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, right?

[7:41] Okay. You were in the middle of objection three. Yeah. Yeah. Yes Okay. So I thought it was funny there. Yeah. But to despise philosophy is not to harm the one. The students. Yeah. Therefore, we're not always angry in account of those things which are done against us, right?

[8:03] Maybe I wonder if Aristotle did any with people who are. I give this example here in the rhetoric. yeah? That's his example there, the philosophy, right? You know, what Socrates says there in the Phaedo, there, right, in the last day of his life, right, he's philosophizing about whether the soul is immortal or not, right? He says we're always being accused of talking about irrelevant things, but how could you say this is irrelevant on the day I'm going to die to be investigating whether the soul is immortal or not, right?

[8:40] So he's kind of getting back at them, you know. in the sense that they say, you know, what the philosophers talk about stuff, you know, no concern to our situation, right, where we are, right, but.

[8:53] But we're all going to die, so we really want to know that, right? You're going to die, and you don't know when. Yeah. Aristotle says in the beginning of the De Anima, right? you know. so we want to know whether the soul is immortal or not right Warred, the one who is what? Silent, I guess, right? Against the one who is insulting him, or

[9:19] he more provokes him to what? Anger, right? As Chrysostom says, right? But in this, he does what? No harm against him, that he's silent.

[9:35] Therefore, not always does anger be provoked and kind of something that was done against him, right? Like Thomas More. Yeah. Furious. Yeah. When my son went to West Point, you know, of course they they try to really, you know, insult you, right? You know, and of course he knew he had to have his hair cut short, so he went and had the the barber cut it real short, you know.

[9:58] But it wasn't short enough for them. of. course The guy says, "you know that's the first time I hear. What's wrong with you?" He says, "Yo, hit yourself." He said, "My son's—I never saw it all in my life." You know, but there is one guy. Actually, I know he's Chinese. It's Oriental anyway. You know, and he just kind of he kind of laughed at the officers. I mean, he just kind of smiled.

[10:21] You know, they couldn't insult him. You know, he just just rolled off his back. You know, he's smiling. That was all game, you know, which it wasn't. It's sense a game, you know. My brother in Africa. My two brothers are priests, and he was a missionary in Africa. And the culture there was such that, if when when he got angry with somebody, the natural reaction is to smile.

[10:52] Yeah. And if the anger you get, the more you get a bigger smile from the person. That's just theory. Begins. This is what the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric. That anger comes to be always from those things which are towards oneself, right? Huh. Lack of friendship, or yeah,

[11:27] without those things which are to oneself, right? Huh. For if we regard him as being such, we what hate him, right? We think he's a thief, right? Okay.

[11:41] I answer. It should be said that as has been said above, anger is the desire of what harming another under the aspect of something just, right? Vindicating the injury, but vindicta, vengeance, or punishment, yeah, does not have place except where injury has what preceded.

[12:11] But not all every not every injury right provokes to what revenge right? Huh. But those only which pertain to the one who desires revenge, for just as each one naturally desires his own good, right? Huh. So also he naturally repels his own what. Man, harm. Yeah.

[12:40] For the injury done by what someone does not pertain to someone unless he does something that in some way is what against him, right? Huh. Hence, it follows that the motive of anger is always something against what done one against himself, right? Okay.

[13:05] What about this anger of God, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that anger is not said to be in God according to the passion, the emotion of the soul, right? But according to the judgment of what, justice, huh? In so far as he wills, right? Revenge, right? Vindication? over what sin, right?

[13:34] For the sinner in sinning, right, harms God in no way, right? In no way can he effectively harm God, right? Nevertheless, from his own side, he acts in two ways against God, right?

[13:56] First, in so far as he has contempt for him in his commands, right? And second, in so far as he infers some what harm to someone, either to himself, right, or to another, Or to another, right? Which pertains to what God, in so far as the one to whom he infers harm is contained under the providence and guardianship of God, huh? Okay.

[14:32] So God has in providence care for his creatures, yeah. So when you harm those creatures, you're opposing, yeah, yeah, Not God himself, but what is under his care, right? And then you contemn him, right, or contempt for him in his commands, huh? Adam and Eve there in the garden, right? Don't eat of that tree, right?

[15:14] To second, it should be said that we become angry against those who what harm others, right? And we desire what revenge, in so far as those to whom they what harm in some way pertain to us, right? Either through some what affinity, friendship, or through friendship, or at least through the communion of our what nature, right? So he's saying what you regard him as yourself in some way, right?

[15:53] A friend is another self. A friend is a second self, as Shakespeare says sometimes. Okay. So the closer they are to you, the more you take it angry because you own family, say right? Okay. Or you own fellow citizens, right? You know, more than citizens of another country, right? But even them, there's a human nature there, right? Okay. You see tyrants in another country or something like in North Korea, you know.

[16:41] If you pity the people there or something, you get angry at the government. for doing those awful things When you blow up there, blowing there in New York, you feel too close for comfort.

[16:59] To third, this is now the one about the philosophers, right now. To third, therefore it should be said that that in which we what most of all strive, or studious. We regard as our good, right? And therefore, when that is despised, we regard ourselves also as being despised, huh? And regard ourselves as what? our wounded. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Love me, love my dog. The old saying. Kick my dog.

[17:32] Yeah. So love me, love my occupation. In a sense, right? Unless I hate my occupation. Yeah. So what are these ballplayers going to say if I say I hate baseball?

[17:49] It's no good. It's a waste of time. Baseball. Getting ugly. Attacking them, right? Warren is talking about how you know. He hands back his students' papers sometimes when you criticize his ideas, right? And some students react to this like you know you're attacking me. Guess they identify themselves with the drivel that they that they have in paper. Yeah. That's my thoughts. That's my that's my work.

[18:27] It's like you despise the painter's you know painting or something, right? Some artists are very sensitive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Painting is a piece of junk. Yeah. As they say, you just wipe your hands on nothing. Yeah. They put some chocolate pudding, and you did this. That was it. Yeah. So there's nothing. We're not so affected by anything quite so much as our love for ourselves. So what?

[18:55] Why we don't love the food that your wife prepares or the the hostess is prepared, right? Very diplomatic. My brother Richard said, I guess, when he first went to his mother-in-law's, right. He said something and he raved about how good it was, you know. So every time he came, they thought they'd make this dish, and he raved about how great it was. He'd done it overdone it, you know.

[19:16] So they thought he really likes this, you know. So he was stuck, and then on, and then dish. Wasn't it? Wasn't the way it was supposed to be?

[19:37] But if you're proud of your work, you know, and some else as well, you know. Especially in these games, especially if somebody has no opinion of your work and you know he's got no experience, but that could roll off your back that easier. I heard the story about you know Austin was up at Laval you know, and his first draft was paper of something that De Koninck was very good, you know. De Koninck looked at it just you know he's fine

[20:11] you know I think we should start over Yeah, I guess the ability to take that. You know, I think we'd better just start over entirely. You know, instead of trying to, you know, trying to sort this out.

[20:26] I remember when I was a freshman in college, and I had the distinct disadvantage of not reading the books I was supposed to be reading for class. And in one class, the doctrine class, and for English class, we were supposed to write a short essay on some topic. I chose Grace because we just studied it in this other class. but I had never read the book, Father Hardon's Catechism.

[20:48] So I wrote my paper on Grace and I handed it in. The professor in this class, he he just put at the bottom of my paper. He didn't give me a grade. He said, "I'm going to let you rewrite this because you're just plagiarizing Father Hardon's Catechism That that on one hand it hurt, but on the other hand I felt very complimented because I told him I said, "The bad news is I haven't even opened the catechism yet.

[21:09] I just listened in class. So this is just for listening. I'm not plagiarizing anything." And he was miffed. I was accusing him of. I was making a false accusation But um, he gave me a half decent grade. Now you go and explain Euclid's theorem, right, Don't you have to get the board to do it, right? You call it plagiarizing. I wouldn't call it plagiarizing. You're following him, you know, more or less.

[21:40] Step by step, right? Huh? You know, maybe there's nothing better to say than he has to say, right? So I was just trying to say. You know, Aristotle's a beautiful thing. There, he says,

[21:58] we should try to say some things better than our predecessors, and other things as well as they said them. You know, sometimes they said them so well that you can just say it as as well as they said it. You know, That's sufficient, right?

[22:17] It's not the attitude of the modern philosophers towards the earlier styles, is it? No. Destroy it all, throw it all away, start over. Yeah.

[22:29] Friend is another self, right? Can't say it better than that, really. So you might as well say what they said. right? Say that. You might as well say what they said. Okay. Empedocles says what is worth saying can be said more than once. That's what Pope St. Pius the tenth encourages architects, you know, church builders. Encourages them to imitate the great masters. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

[23:00] Just imitate the masters. And then you can learn from them. You can try to do what they did, rather than reinventing them. Okay. To the fourth, I guess. To the fourth, then it should be said that someone being silent provokes what to anger, huh? Injury. When he seems to do this, what from contempt to be sad, right? As it were that he what thinks little. Yeah. The anger of the other.

[23:43] Yeah. For this little thinking is an act, right? Okay. Now sometimes somebody says something that's so absurd you just kind of ignore it, right? And they take it seriously. This stupid thing. And then you parvipendo, then I don't know if you are, but. Article two. To the second one proceeds thus: It seems that not only parvipensio, thinking little of, right, or despising, is the motive of what anger, right?

[24:36] For Damascene says that undergoing an injury or estimating to undergo, they become angry, right? But a man can undergo injury even without what despising or yeah. Therefore, not only is thinking small the motive of what anger, anger, right? Okay.

[25:09] I was thinking that little boy, you know, came over to my friend's house there, right, and the plant was there, right, and he saw a guy, he saw the plant, he just knocked about that and smashed it, you know, and took it off. But you see, he broke the plant, right? Huh? But there seemed to be certain what despising of him, right? I just what he can do you though, huh?

[25:33] Yeah, yeah, yeah. A little kid like that, boy. Yeah. It's of the same one to desire honor and to be what saddened about people thinking little of you, right? But the brute animals do not desire honor, right? Therefore, they are not saddened by someone thinking little of them. But nevertheless, in them, anger is provoked on account of this that they are what injured, yeah. As the philosopher says in the third book of the ethics, right?

[26:10] Huh? And that the bull and the Spain there gets angry, right? Huh? They're trying to provoke the kid's anger by sticking with pins or something. I don't know. Okay. Moreover, the philosopher in the second book of the rhetoric lays down many other causes of anger, right? As what forgetfulness, right? And this guy in high school, you know, when he'd introduce his friends to some girl, you know, he'd always say, and and and pretending to remember their name, you know, like it's kind of a joke, you know.

[26:49] You got you got a the dances and he bring a little you know tin ring you know and take the girls up on the roof and propose to them. Yeah, it was all a joke, you know, but one thing, but.

[27:09] So oblivion, forgetfulness, exultation in what unfortunate things, right? Huh. The enunciation of bad things, the impediment of what, fouling one's own what, will, and so on. For therefore, not only little thinking of somebody, or thinking of them, is provoking of anger.

[27:38] But against this is what the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, that anger is the desire with the sadness of what, punishment, an account of an apparent parvipensionis, not suitably what, made.

[28:01] So the philosopher's really thought a lot about anger, hasn't he? Maybe we should begin with Stephen Aristotle with the second book of the rhetoric. Oh yeah, he's talking about things I understand, things that I experience every day. But they call them emotions. Why they are right?

[28:26] Now, what does the great Thomas say about this? I answer it should be said, and that all causes of anger are led back to what, thinking little of somebody.

[28:47] For there are three species of what, Thinking little. thinking little, as is said in the second book of the rhetoric, right? To wit, despising somebody, right?

[29:05] Blocking their will, right? Parasmos from the Greek word, huh? Tetsu Thomas explains it right. Impeding the fulfillment of their will, right? And contumelia, huh? That's kind of like insulting, I guess, huh? Okay.

[29:30] And to these three, all things that move anger are reduced, right? Now the reason for this can be taken to fold, right? First is that anger desires the what, harming of another, right? In so far as it has the aspect of something just that is vindictive, right? And therefore, to that extent, he seeks what? Complication. Yeah. In so far as he regards it to be just, huh?

[30:10] But that is a just revenge that does come about except on account of something unjustly what done, right? And therefore, what is provocative to anger or produces anger is always something under the notion of something what unjust? Huh? I didn't deserve that.

[30:37] Once the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric that if men think that those who what injured were injured to unjustly, yeah, they do not what get angry, right? Huh? For one, for anger does not come about to what is what just? Just, huh? Okay.

[31:05] The interesting scene there in what Shakespeare's Julius Caesar there, where Cassius and Brutus get into kind of a conflict there. It's one of the most famous scenes in Shakespeare.

[31:19] And Brutus seems to be taking parvipensio right, huh? For Cassius. Now, in three ways harm can be inferred to someone, to wit, from ignorance, right? From passion and from what choice? Choice, huh? So I can harm you out of ignorance, not knowing it, I guess, right? I can harm you out of passion. I get angry with you. Anger would be the cause of anger. And choice, right?

[31:57] Then someone, most of all, does something unjust when from choice or what effort? What effort? Maybe their industry. Yeah. Or from certain evil malice, right? Huh? He infers harm. Yeah. Okay. And this is what Iago, right? Huh? Choice, right? Huh? Okay. It's a not so funny. Realized at the end they could tear apart Iago, right? Huh? Okay.

[32:36] And therefore, we most of all become angry against those we think that they what they labored, you might say, right? Yeah, yeah. To harm us, right? Huh? Okay.

[32:50] For if we think that some either through ignorance, right? Oh, I didn't. I mean to. Oh, that was your thing. Or from what passion to have inferred injury to us? Huh? Either we do not become angry against them, or much less, right? Huh? Okay. You know, interesting. Sometimes you'll put up with people who've got a little bit of temper, you know, right? Because they're used to in there, you know, you know, blowing up and knowing, like I'm cold, you know.

[33:22] The only way you take it is, you know. They can't help it right now, you know. And Cassius is complaining to Brutus about that, right? That Cassius got kind of this temper that flares up. He inherited from his mother or something, from his father, and and his mother, I guess. And you should you should take that into account, right? He's angry with it, you know.

[33:51] Okay. You do not become angry against them, or much what less, right now. For to do something from ignorance or from passion diminishes the notion of what injury, right now, and is to some extent provoking of what mercy and what forgiveness, right huh. Okay Veni right Venial sin right?

[34:25] Um Those who, from industry or from what study, you might say, right? Infer harm seem to what sin from what contempt, right? And therefore, against them, maximally, most of all, we become what angry, right? Whence the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric that those who, on account of anger, do something, right? Either we do not become angry with them, or we are less angry with them, right?

[35:03] For they have not seemed to have acted on account of thinking little of us, right? The second reason, right, is because parva pensio, thinking little, is opposed to the excellence of what? Of man. Yeah.

[35:29] For those things for those men that we think in no way to be worthy, right? We think little them, right? As is said in the second book of the rhetoric.

[35:48] Now, from all of our goods, we seek some what excellence, right? And therefore, whatever harm is is inflicted upon us, in so far as it what goes against our excellence, seems to pertain to what? Yeah.

[36:18] Now, to apply to the first objection, there, you can be injured by someone without being despised, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that from whatever other cause someone suffers injury than from contempt, that cause diminishes the notion of what injury, right? But contempt alone, or thinking little of, increases the notion of what anger, and therefore it is a per se cause of becoming angry, right?

[37:12] It's interesting that Thomas, the most reasonable man and the greatest thinker perhaps of the church, right? You know, has a marvelous understanding of the emotions, right? You wouldn't think that he would, you know. You see, Thomas must have been a calm man to have thought all these things out, you know, and all these other arts of philosophy, right? Theology, right? And yet that he should, you know, emotions so well, right?

[37:42] Has modern psychology taken into account these very profound observations about human nature that he develops using Aristotle and other? I I doubt if they if they if they anybody go back and read them, you know. Yeah, probably. They despise them. It's I think maybe Father Hebert has said it before Any any psychologist that knows what he's talking about knows to read St Thomas on the passions. I mean, you can't you can't you can't avoid this if you want if you're serious about the business.

[38:16] You can't. I mean, the business of caring for souls at all, whatever capacity you can't you can't ignore this. I think who was I forget who the psychologist or psychiatrist, whichever it was, who said it may have been the name Paul Vitz sticks out in my head, but I I don't know if he's the one who said it. But if you want to understand psychology, you have to read St Thomas on the passions.

[38:40] I think Father Owen Bennett told us that years ago, but I forget if it was he used to cite Paul Vitz, who's a contemporary psychologist or whatever he is in New York, Catholic gentleman. and I suppose he's good. I've never read anything by him, but he's supposed to be good when he does. And how can you ignore this? You can't ignore it because we have to judge the abnormal from what's normal.

[39:00] He's crisis, what's normal, and St Thomas tells us about everything else in terms of in terms of that. Senator Moynihan had a famous article Defining Deviancy down back in the 90s. I think it was the 80s. Where he's saying that different civilizations or cultures might have a certain threshold of tolerance for behavior. Everything under the threshold is criminal, unacceptable. Everything above the threshold is okay. But we're looking at a phenomenon in our own society where we're redefining what inappropriate behavior is.

[39:34] We're defining down what deviancy is, so we're accepting a lot more inappropriate stuff that we wouldn't put up with before. And yeah, that probably goes with jettisoning Thomas. That's insensitive you to suggest that. I know, I know, and I hope you're not angry about it. Don't know, no interest in that case. I'm angry.

[40:20] To the second, it should be said that although the brute animal does not desire honor under the notion of honor, he nevertheless naturally desires a certain what excellence, right? And he becomes angry against those who dare Yeah, yeah, yeah. Remember that when the dog comes after you, you step on his turf. His turf. Yeah. That's what I saw with

[40:57] the cats last year. There's one one of our cats. She has her territory outside, and the other one doesn't go there. or- ordinarily doesn't go there. Yeah. yeah. But last year, the other one ventured down there and kind of just plopped down the middle of this courtyard where the other one. Right away, she came right over. She was really mad. This is my turf. Chased her out.

[41:18] Yeah. And the other one submitted right away. She was like, "Oh, oh, oh." Originally, the two cats at the house there, and the one was the daughter, the other one, but but it was kind of a nice place down on the bed, or what was it called? The cat that goes first. So the little cat had gone there first, and was laying there down, you know. And then the mother cat goes down, and she's gonna, the other cat there.

[41:44] Yeah, we got. This guy got like two feet almost, you know. What are you doing, my soft spot? Yeah. The cats did that to the dog sometimes. His little his little bed on on the porch, and sometimes the cats ordinarily never go there, but once in a while, just plop right down the middle of it, like we can claim this spot. That's that's my interpretation of it.

[42:19] The way Washington Irving describes, you know, the animals of uh, who's the Scottish uh, novelist there, Sir Walter Scott, right? You know, and the cat kind of ruled the thing, you know, and with her paw and bodies, the dogs that come by, you know, so really expecting her honor, you know. Yeah. Interesting to see those animals now. Cats were charged such social creatures compared to dogs, which are pack animals by instinct, and so more similar to humans.

[42:54] And so their whole notion of superiority in interaction is different, as well. Although there are certain similarities too. You've heard what Churchill said about the dog and the cat and the pig. He says the dog, you know, fawns upon you like a slave, you know. And the cat, you know, looks down upon you, you know, huh? And the pig looks in the eye and treats you like an equal.

[43:15] Let's get all those animals around the hostess, so. But you're the sort of catchment term, is you know, what, how would your schedule should be, you know? Yeah, exactly. You know, it's got to adjust to his schedule or her schedule.

[43:37] Now he says all those ones that Aristotle gives in the rhetoric there, right? Oblivion, right? Exultation and fortune and so on. All those causes are reduced to a certain what? Thinking little, right? Huh? For forgetfulness is a what? Evidence. Evidence sign of thinking little, right? Huh? Well, I don't forget everybody's names now, so. At his old age, not that thing. Different cause. Yeah.

[44:11] For those that we estimate great, we more what fix our memory, right? Huh? Likewise, from a certain what? Thinking little, it is that someone does not fear to sadden someone, right? By denouncing to him some what sad sad things, right? Huh? And those who, in the misfortunes of others, show some signs of hilarity, right? Seem to care little about the good or evil of another, right? Huh?

[44:48] It's kind of funny enough, even among friends. Sometimes you know, something ridiculous about happens, and they're kind of annoyed. And your first reaction is to kind of, you know, you can't help yourself sometimes.

[45:02] Yeah. Likewise, someone who impedes someone from the what? Attainment of his what he proposes, not on account of any utility relative to them, right? Does not seem to pertain much to his what? Friend. Friendship, right? Huh? Doesn't seem to care about his friendship, right? Huh? And therefore, all such things, in so far as they are signs of contempt, are provocative of what? Anger, right? So we get. Time for another article or not?

[45:39] Okay. To the third, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the excellence of someone is not a cause that he is more easily what angry, huh? For the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric that most of all some are what grow angry when they are saddened, right, huh? As the infirm and the needy, and those who do not have that which they what desire, right, huh?

[46:14] But all these pertain to what defect, right? And therefore, more defect makes us prone to anger than what excellence, right, huh? So we go in the restaurant there to have dinner there, and there's no wine list, huh? But Mark approaches a little bit shocked, a little bit you know angry about this. He said, "Well, we're we're a family restaurant." There we got

[46:51] him. Those excuses, man. That's defect, though, right? Yeah. Wherever the philosopher says there, that's all the second rhetoric, right? That then some are most of all angry when in them is despised that about which there can be what some suspicion, either that it is not in them or that is in them what weakly, right, huh?

[47:34] But when they what they think themselves to be much excelled in those things which they despise, they do not what care. But the aforesaid suspicion arises from what defect, huh? Therefore, defect is more the cause that someone is what angry than excellence, huh?

[48:02] Etymology of the word suspicious, there. Seeing mine. Maybe I'm gonna guess looking under something. I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. I've seen that in the Greek there, the hypolambane, hypolabesis in Greek, you know, can be translated sometimes suspicion, right? Hypolabesis is a taking up, you know, huh? It says look up to or admire suspicious. Yeah, yeah, but it's something like like hypolambane in Greek, right? To take up, right?

[48:39] But it has a sense there. You know, he starts talking in the sixth book that opinion, doxa, you know, and hypolepsis, right? Because they're sometimes correct and sometimes wrong, they can't be virtues, right? Okay. But one pertains to dialectic, right? The other to rhetoric, right? Suspicion and opinion. But as welling with the etymology, suspicious, look like that, look up to, right? Yeah, you pull them out, take up from, but they're not exactly the same.

[49:16] Okay. Moreover, those things which pertain to excellence, most of all, make men joyful and to be of good hope, right? Huh? But the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric that in play, in laughter, in festival, in prosperity, in the conservation of works, in pleasure that is not base, and in good hope, men are not what? Yeah. Therefore, excellence is not the cause of anger, right?

[49:45] Huh? But against this is what the philosopher in the same book says that men are indignant on account of excellence, right? Huh? So my answer should be said that the cause of anger in the one who becomes angry can be taken in what? Two ways, huh? In one way, according as its relation to what moves one to what anger, and thus excellence is a cause that someone be easily what?

[50:20] Angry, right? Huh? For that is a motive of anger that is unjust what? Thinking little, right? Huh? But it stands that when the more he is what? Excellent, right? The more. More unjustly he is what? Little. Yeah. In this in which he in fact excels, right? Huh? And therefore those who are in some excellence are most of all angered if they are thought what? Little of, right?

[50:52] Huh? If the rich are thought little of in their money, right? Huh? And their adoration in his speaking, right? And six dialectics, right? Huh? Augustine was a teacher of rhetoric, right? Yeah.

[51:14] Another way one can consider the cause of anger in the one who becomes angry on the part of the disposition which is left in him from such a what? Motive, huh? Now it is manifest that nothing moves to anger except the what? It saddens. And therefore, those things which pertain to defect are most of all what? Saddening, huh? Because men undergoing what are being subject to what defects are more easily injured, right?

[51:50] Huh? And this is the reason where for men who are infirm or in other defects are more easily what angry, right? Huh? Because they are more easily what saddened, huh? And to this is clearly response to the first one, right? Huh? First, I was talking about that, right? Yeah.

[52:19] Like they say, kick a man when he's down. Kind of—that's what I think of. If he's weak in something, you make him have a little bit. He said, "He said, kick him out when he's down. It's easier." Yeah. That's what the comedian said. Yeah. When

[52:44] people are are are sick or something, they might be what short-tempered too, right? Yeah. Okay, but then it's coming from a defect in that. It's time, right? Huh. Okay.

[52:59] That's I mentioned the last pass when Saint Alfonso's advising priests attending the dying. He says, "Don't do anything to annoy them. Don't, you know, don't." I told you the story. Somebody going on and on and on with these loud prayers and hymns, and this is when somebody's dying. I said, "Shh, leave him alone. Leave him alone. Don't annoy the dying. They're struggling with everything, and the last thing they want is provocation to be impatient or stuff like that.

[53:26] Trying to be so cheerful." Okay. To the second, it should be said: the one who is despised in that in which manifestly he excels much, right? Does not regard himself to have suffered somewhat.

[54:10] Well, that's a boast, isn't it? Somebody boasts against him, yeah, maybe. And therefore, he's not saddened, and from this side, he is less what angry, huh? But from another side, in so far as he is what worldlyly despised, yeah, yeah, he has more reason to be angry, right? Huh?

[54:37] Unless perhaps he regards himself as not to be what envied, or to be what murmured against, on account of respect, but on account of ignorance or something of this sort, huh?

[54:57] Now all those things that Aristotle mentions, I hope people don't get angry. They impede anger insofar as they impede what sadness, huh? But from another side, they act to provoke anger, according as they make man to be unsuitably despised.

[55:24] So the Pope comes to a country there, and you get one of these crazy nuns, you know, coming out, besides a crazy priest, you know, and and they're kind of fired in there, protesting their ideas, right, huh? You know, that makes them angry, right, huh? Because they're kind of

[55:45] treating him as of little concern, right, huh? That's how Pope John Paul defused that situation. Was it Miami or wherever it was? Sister, whatever her name is, Sister Sister Mary Anthrax came out and gave her speech about whatever women's ordination thing. That's what he said. It's a long, long way temporary. Defuse it with us. A joke. Can't take that seriously. Probably made her really angry. They just despised her.

[56:22] Protest. Didn't take her seriously. You got to stop now here, but this isn't too long. Maybe we can finish. Okay. To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the defect of someone is not a cause that against him we are more easily what? Angry. Yeah. For the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric that to those who confess and are penitent and are humble we do not become angry, right?

[57:01] Huh? But we're more mild towards them, right? Hence the dogs do not bite those who sit down or something, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. But this pertains to smallness and defect, right? Therefore, the smallness of someone is a cause that we become less what? Angry. Yeah. Moreover, no no greater defect is there than that of death, right? But anger what? Seizes right towards the dead, right? Huh? Therefore, the defect of someone is not a cause that is provoking of anger against him, right?

[57:41] Huh? Moreover, no one regards someone as small from this that he is what? His friend, right? But to friends, if they offend us or if they do not aid us, we are more what? Offended. That that's the thing there with Cassius and Brutus. See, we did see that scene. That's quite a scene. Whence it is said in Psalm fifty-four, huh? If my enemy had what? Cursed me.

[58:07] Cursed me. I could have sustained you, right? You, my friend. Yeah, that too, Brutus. Therefore, the defect of someone is not a cause that against him we more easily become angry, right? Huh? But against this is what the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric that the wealthy become angry against the what? Poor. And and if he despises him, right? And the prince against his what?

[58:36] Subject, right? What if what if the rich despise the rich? That's what I think of when Obama talks about it. Answer should be said that as has been said above, the unworthy despising is most of all provocative of anger, right? Huh? Now the defect or the smallness of the one against whom we are angry makes for the increase of anger in so far as it increases the unworthy despising, right?

[59:11] Huh? Just as when someone is greater, right? Huh? So much more so is he unworthily despised, right? And the more someone is less, the more what?

[59:29] He despises, right? Huh? Unworthily, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And therefore, the nobles are angry if they are despised by the rustics, right? Yeah, and the wise from foolish. Or the wise from the foolish, right? Or servants from the servants, right? Lords from the servants The servants.

[59:55] If, however, the smallness or defect diminishes the what? Unworthiness of the despising, such a smallness does not increase but diminishes the angry. And in this way, those who are penitent of their injuries done and confess themselves to have done bad and humble themselves and ask forgiveness, they mitigate anger, right? According to that of Proverbs fifteen, a soft response, right? Breaks anger. Breaks anger. In so far as such are seen not to despise, but more to regard greatly those before whom they humble themselves, right?

[1:00:41] Okay. So this, he says, is clear as the response to the first one, right? To the second about death, twofold is the cause wherefore anger ceases towards the bad. I mean, to the dead, rather. And one because they are not able to what sorrow and to sense. Yeah. To feel the pain. Which the angry most of all seek in those against whom they are angry. Another way, because they are now seen to have what arrived at the last of all evil things, right?

[1:01:18] Whence also to those gravely what injured anger ceases, right? In so far as their evil exceeds the measure of just retribution, right. To third, should be said that also despising, which comes from friends, seems to be more. Unworthy. Yeah. And therefore, from a similar cause, we are more angry against them if we are despised, either in what harming or not aiding, just as against what. Minors. Minors.

[1:01:54] Okay. It seems like a common thing to hear people say that I will say my wife is angry that her deceased husband, whom she loved very much, but suddenly has a heart attack and he's gone. Mm-hmm.